Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Manifest excess

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2022

HKSAR v. CHIANG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1333
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC292/2021

The judge was entitled to reject the theft-by-finding account and to set the challenged starting points and partly consecutive sentences because the scale of offences, variety of stolen items, multiple victims, possession of identity documents and D1's role and recidivism justified the aggregate sentences; therefore the totals (42 months for D1 and 35 months for D2) were not manifestly excessive.
10 Feb 2021

HKSAR v. CHUNG HO YIN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 159
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC75/2020

Leave to argue the ground that the sentencing exercise may have failed to apply the totality principle correctly and may have been mechanically arithmetic was granted; the court found the ground reasonably arguable because the judge did not assess role and culpability or reflect the linkage between the traffic and drug offences in the aggregate sentence and used overly precise arithmetic in expressing sentences.
20 Jul 2018

HKSAR v. POON KAR YUE

Citation

[2018] HKCA 433
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC356/2017

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted because the aggregate sentence may be manifestly excessive and required appellate consideration; bail pending appeal was refused because the applicant did not meet the higher threshold for bail pending an appeal against sentence and the appeal must be heard within three months.
27 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. WONG HAU LING

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HAU LING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/2017

The judge’s choice of a 7½ year starting point for trafficking 26.5g of methamphetamine was within the discretionary range indicated by Tam Yi Chun, and applying the full one‑third discount for the timely guilty plea to yield a 5 year sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
11 Nov 2016

HKSAR v. LUI YUEN SHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI YUEN SHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC160/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge lawfully enhanced the starting points to 48 months per count in view of the applicant's persistent and similar offending, the partial consecutive/partial concurrent ordering was appropriate for two separate burglaries, and there was no reasonably arguable ground that the overall 52 month sentence was manifestly excessive even though the judge mistakenly believed a 6 month deception sentence was being served.
24 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. LIM BAN HOONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LIM BAN HOONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC465/2007

The Court refused leave to appeal sentence, holding that the improbability of success did not constitute a mitigating factor because the false historic documents could realistically have placed the bank in difficulty; given the applicant was the mastermind of an elaborate, aggressively pursued scheme the judge was entitled to adopt a starting point slightly above three years and the 39 month sentence was appropriate.
14 Mar 2008

HKSAR v. LUI FUI

Citation

HKSAR v. LUI FUI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC237/2007

The appellate court held that given the expert evidence about the grenade's capacity to cause serious effects, the applicant's admission of knowing it contained explosives, his inability to substantiate a hobby use, and his prior record, the sentencing judge's starting point of 4 years and the ultimate sentence of 33 months (after reductions) were within proper bounds and not manifestly excessive; accordingly leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
6 Mar 2001

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI SHING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG CHI SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC236/2000

The judge did not err in adopting a higher starting point because the burglary was professionally carried out, involved forcing a safe and taking a large sum, and the applicant had multiple prior burglary convictions; therefore the sentence of three years and four months was appropriate and not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
13 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. YUEN KIN KEI

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN KIN KEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA915/2000

The magistrate acted within discretion in adopting the DATC officer's recommendation; the resulting sentence of admission to DATC was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, therefore the appeal was dismissed.
12 Sept 2000

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN CHEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHUN CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA779/2000

The Court held the Magistrate did not err: having regard to the appellant's prior record, breaches of probation, triad association, detailed reports and the Young Offender Assessment Panel recommendation, the statutory test under s4 was met and a Training Centre Order was appropriate; adult authorities cited were inapplicable, therefore the appeal was dismissed.